EFL unveil radical plans to finish season in just 56 days

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

So why won't clubs that miss out on promotion accept that and not sue then?

Of course they won't just like relegated clubs won't.

[Parkinsons Perm]

So why won't clubs that miss out on promotion accept that and not sue then?

Of course they won't just like relegated clubs won't.

Exactly, so the seasons not "dead" for those clubs, only in your head and that's where this all started, so you've finally come around to its not "dead"

It's good when you can admit you're wrong so well done mate.

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

So why won't clubs that miss out on promotion accept that and not sue then?

Of course they won't just like relegated clubs won't.

Exactly, so the seasons not "dead" for those clubs, only in your head and that's where this all started, so you've finally come around to its not "dead"

It's good when you can admit you're wrong so well done mate.

Of course the season is dead and only someone as pedantic as we obviously are won't see that.

Ok let's just start it up again and waste another two months (+ whatever period they deem for a close season) for the majority of clubs and supporters to endure before anything relevant to their teams happens. Let's make clubs spend money they don't have and then pretend that everything is fair and balanced. Let's just ignore the clubs that may (or may not) go to the wall in the mean time. Anything as long as we finish the season and probably ruin the next in the process.

[Parkinsons Perm]

So why won't clubs that miss out on promotion accept that and not sue then?

Of course they won't just like relegated clubs won't.

Exactly, so the seasons not "dead" for those clubs, only in your head and that's where this all started, so you've finally come around to its not "dead"

It's good when you can admit you're wrong so well done mate.

Of course the season is dead and only someone as pedantic as we obviously are won't see that.

Ok let's just start it up again and waste another two months (+ whatever period they deem for a close season) for the majority of clubs and supporters to endure before anything relevant to their teams happens. Let's make clubs spend money they don't have and then pretend that everything is fair and balanced. Let's just ignore the clubs that may (or may not) go to the wall in the mean time. Anything as long as we finish the season and probably ruin the next in the process.

Sounds fair

[Big yella]

Not sure about "nowhere near" we were 2nd with 10 games left. You argue strongly for the leagues to be voided but I'm not sure how fair that is, particularly for the likes of Liverpool, Leeds, WBA & Barrow (amongst others) There's no easy answer but I agree with Cassells, that the authorities will try to finish this season, one way or another, before starting a new season.

Sandy Pate Best Stag said "nowhere near" to make it fit his argument.

Just like his "finishing an already dead season", yes it's dead to us so easy to say that, he's put very little thought into his reasoning.

Im not misquoting figures to make up an argument.

In respect of giving very little thought to the reasoning let's look at Barrow who many on here think should just be given the automatic promotion spot. They sit just four points clear of Harrogate in second place with both teams having played 37 games. If you look at the last five games, Barrow have only taken 7 points to Harrogates 11 and 3rd place Notts County have taken 12. Carry that form to the end of the season and Barrow would be overtaken by at least one team (County have played a game more). Of course they may not be overtaken and COULD end up as champions.

My point is that no-one knows what would have happened and any attempt to conclude this season will bear no resemblance to an uninterrupted sequence of games. The same logic applies to teams at the bottom of the tables and I would argue that it is worse to condem a team to relegation than it is to deny a promotion. I also think that insisting on a conclusion would take numbers off gates and be detrimental to the long term stability of the game. As evidence for this I would point to Bury who are still contesting their expulsion. How quickly would relegated teams give up? Teams denied a promotion they had not yet earned would not have the same balance of argument.

You mean as opposed to playing no games and getting no revenue, very sound long term planning that.

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

Not sure about "nowhere near" we were 2nd with 10 games left. You argue strongly for the leagues to be voided but I'm not sure how fair that is, particularly for the likes of Liverpool, Leeds, WBA & Barrow (amongst others) There's no easy answer but I agree with Cassells, that the authorities will try to finish this season, one way or another, before starting a new season.

Sandy Pate Best Stag said "nowhere near" to make it fit his argument.

Just like his "finishing an already dead season", yes it's dead to us so easy to say that, he's put very little thought into his reasoning.

Im not misquoting figures to make up an argument.

In respect of giving very little thought to the reasoning let's look at Barrow who many on here think should just be given the automatic promotion spot. They sit just four points clear of Harrogate in second place with both teams having played 37 games. If you look at the last five games, Barrow have only taken 7 points to Harrogates 11 and 3rd place Notts County have taken 12. Carry that form to the end of the season and Barrow would be overtaken by at least one team (County have played a game more). Of course they may not be overtaken and COULD end up as champions.

My point is that no-one knows what would have happened and any attempt to conclude this season will bear no resemblance to an uninterrupted sequence of games. The same logic applies to teams at the bottom of the tables and I would argue that it is worse to condem a team to relegation than it is to deny a promotion. I also think that insisting on a conclusion would take numbers off gates and be detrimental to the long term stability of the game. As evidence for this I would point to Bury who are still contesting their expulsion. How quickly would relegated teams give up? Teams denied a promotion they had not yet earned would not have the same balance of argument.

You mean as opposed to playing no games and getting no revenue, very sound long term planning that.

Craig, I know you are hurting at the moment but just take a second to think this through.

I am not saying that football should not resume but that it should start afresh. That would make it of interest to a greater number of fans (fans of all clubs not just a few) and make it more likely they return once crowds are allowed again. That will generate more revenue not less even if games are played on ifollow. Casual fans will not either attend or rent games if their team has nothing to play for. It's no good flogging a dead horse.

[spainmick]

What's the problem with players finishing this season and having a shorter close season and then starting up again in September or october or whenever and having to play, god forbid, 2 matches every week ..in the 1970s players were less fit than modern players but often played 2 or more matches a week to catch up after the many postponed matches due to crap pitches....

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

What's the problem with players finishing this season and having a shorter close season and then starting up again in September or october or whenever and having to play, god forbid, 2 matches every week ..in the 1970s players were less fit than modern players but often played 2 or more matches a week to catch up after the many postponed matches due to crap pitches....

In my humble opinion, I think there are several problems with that. First of all, I cannot see crowds of any magnitude until we have a vaccine ready and waiting. That will not be in the short term and certainly not before July (timescale to complete and start again in October)

The second obstacle is finances. A lot of people are suffering financially in this crisis and money is very tight for them. Yes you could condense a season and play two matches a week but could the average fan afford this?. I think probably not as lots will be paying off debt accumulated during this crisis. If you accept that, then you cannot run clubs at the level we have been used to on finances which are reduced to that degree.. Add on the fact that there are other things in life and lots of people just don't have the time to give up two days a week to football even if they could afford it. Fans who are not based locally would have to travel in midweek which again is not practical.

Additionally it is one thing to play more matches over a short period but is that sustainable for a full season?

Surely it is better to draw a line and start again. That would give a meaningful season and also allow people to spread the financial and time costs over a longer period. Crowds per game would be larger and clubs would be placed under less financial pressure.

[Big yella]

Not sure about "nowhere near" we were 2nd with 10 games left. You argue strongly for the leagues to be voided but I'm not sure how fair that is, particularly for the likes of Liverpool, Leeds, WBA & Barrow (amongst others) There's no easy answer but I agree with Cassells, that the authorities will try to finish this season, one way or another, before starting a new season.

Sandy Pate Best Stag said "nowhere near" to make it fit his argument.

Just like his "finishing an already dead season", yes it's dead to us so easy to say that, he's put very little thought into his reasoning.

Im not misquoting figures to make up an argument.

In respect of giving very little thought to the reasoning let's look at Barrow who many on here think should just be given the automatic promotion spot. They sit just four points clear of Harrogate in second place with both teams having played 37 games. If you look at the last five games, Barrow have only taken 7 points to Harrogates 11 and 3rd place Notts County have taken 12. Carry that form to the end of the season and Barrow would be overtaken by at least one team (County have played a game more). Of course they may not be overtaken and COULD end up as champions.

My point is that no-one knows what would have happened and any attempt to conclude this season will bear no resemblance to an uninterrupted sequence of games. The same logic applies to teams at the bottom of the tables and I would argue that it is worse to condem a team to relegation than it is to deny a promotion. I also think that insisting on a conclusion would take numbers off gates and be detrimental to the long term stability of the game. As evidence for this I would point to Bury who are still contesting their expulsion. How quickly would relegated teams give up? Teams denied a promotion they had not yet earned would not have the same balance of argument.

You mean as opposed to playing no games and getting no revenue, very sound long term planning that.

Craig, I know you are hurting at the moment but just take a second to think this through.

I am not saying that football should not resume but that it should start afresh. That would make it of interest to a greater number of fans (fans of all clubs not just a few) and make it more likely they return once crowds are allowed again. That will generate more revenue not less even if games are played on ifollow. Casual fans will not either attend or rent games if their team has nothing to play for. It's no good flogging a dead horse.

But you keep going on about smaller clubs finances yet you want to just wipe out over 20% of their home game revenue in one pen stroke. Now you and the rest of those saying end the season now will probably deny it, but deep down you know that if this had happened last season with us in the top three you wouldn't be asking for the season to end,

So you get your way and the season is ended, we are out of lockdown and the season starts as normal in August, what happens when we go back into lockdown later in the year, like all the experts think we will have to, is that another season we just throw away. How many lower league clubs will survive that?

When you've ended the season how long will clubs have to payback the 20% of season ticket monies that they owe for games not played? You've just mentioned how people will be struggling for money they will need it.

How long to pay advertisers back from the local small business' who have boards around the ground or season long programme deals. They will have been struggling and need the money too.

Do clubs offer a 20% discount on next season so as not to have to pay the monies back? Well again, that may work for us with most of the squad out of contact, we can get rid start again, and budget accordingly, but what about those clubs in the middle of their cycle who have most of their squad under contract for next season. ? How do they manage with a 20% reduction in income.

To say you are worried about long term finances you are taking a very short term view.

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

Sorry Craig but you are missing the point. There will be NO gate money from the 10 games only 5 of which will be at home (on average).

Clubs will still have to finance those games in respect of playing staff and all the other staff needed to make sure they go ahead.

I can't see there being crowds at football matches until at least the Autumn and maybe even longer. The government may (and only may) allow small gatherings of people before then but I can't see them allowing groups larger than 50 - 100 at a time. Where would the revenue come from to run behind doors games during that period. Surely it's better to wait until crowds are allowed back and start again with the enthusiasm that a new season always brings.

In respect of the loss of revenue, there is no easy answer but I can't see that clubs will make cash refunds to anyone. I think future discounts are probably the only practical answer with details being worked out on an individual basis. That's what other businesses are having to do and as an example holiday camps are giving credit toward next year's fees. If people want the cash, they will probably have to resort to court action and risk bankrupting the companies and losing their cash anyway.

[Big yella]

Sorry Craig but you are missing the point. There will be NO gate money from the 10 games only 5 of which will be at home (on average). 5 home games is 20% of home games.

Clubs will still have to finance those games in respect of playing staff and all the other staff needed to make sure they go ahead. They will be able to recoup some money through ifollow and TV. I'm no genius and have already posted myself each league could play every four days with up to 7 games a day shown live on Sky/BT. In our league each club could easily agree to share the monies equally from Sky/BT.

I can't see there being crowds at football matches until at least the Autumn and maybe even longer. The government may (and only may) allow small gatherings of people before then but I can't see them allowing groups larger than 50 - 100 at a time. Where would the revenue come from to run behind doors games during that period. Surely it's better to wait until crowds are allowed back and start again with the enthusiasm that a new season always brings.So we end this season and we can't start next season until late September early October, a season that will have to end early to fit in the Euro's like this season did. Yet in an earlier post you don't think it's right to ask players to play games crammed together. Last Saturday in September until the last Saturday in April is 31 Saturdays, that's at least 15 midweek games and not one FA Cup game or League Cup game scheduled. Before you say cancel the cups, that's guaranteed income cash strapped clubs will need, including those lower in the pyramid than us in the case of the FA Cup. That's not one postponement factored in, and not having another lockdown as experts predict. At what point will we right that season off.

In respect of the loss of revenue, there is no easy answer but I can't see that clubs will make cash refunds to anyone. I think future discounts are probably the only practical answer with details being worked out on an individual basis. That's what other businesses are having to do and as an example holiday camps are giving credit toward next year's fees. If people want the cash, they will probably have to resort to court action and risk bankrupting the companies and losing their cash anyway.Legally, if you want a refund you are entitled to it, what they want to give you has no legal standing. According to you people wont want to be in large crowds, so why would you accept a discount for an event you have no intention of attending. Clubs normally have around 5 or 6 midweek games scheduled a season, how many less season tickets will be sold when people can't make at least 15 midweek games through work or family commitments?

[Sandy Pate Best Stag]

Sorry Craig but you are missing the point. There will be NO gate money from the 10 games only 5 of which will be at home (on average). 5 home games is 20% of home games.

Clubs will still have to finance those games in respect of playing staff and all the other staff needed to make sure they go ahead. They will be able to recoup some money through ifollow and TV. I'm no genius and have already posted myself each league could play every four days with up to 7 games a day shown live on Sky/BT. In our league each club could easily agree to share the monies equally from Sky/BT.

I can't see there being crowds at football matches until at least the Autumn and maybe even longer. The government may (and only may) allow small gatherings of people before then but I can't see them allowing groups larger than 50 - 100 at a time. Where would the revenue come from to run behind doors games during that period. Surely it's better to wait until crowds are allowed back and start again with the enthusiasm that a new season always brings.So we end this season and we can't start next season until late September early October, a season that will have to end early to fit in the Euro's like this season did. Yet in an earlier post you don't think it's right to ask players to play games crammed together. Last Saturday in September until the last Saturday in April is 31 Saturdays, that's at least 15 midweek games and not one FA Cup game or League Cup game scheduled. Before you say cancel the cups, that's guaranteed income cash strapped clubs will need, including those lower in the pyramid than us in the case of the FA Cup. That's not one postponement factored in, and not having another lockdown as experts predict. At what point will we right that season off.

In respect of the loss of revenue, there is no easy answer but I can't see that clubs will make cash refunds to anyone. I think future discounts are probably the only practical answer with details being worked out on an individual basis. That's what other businesses are having to do and as an example holiday camps are giving credit toward next year's fees. If people want the cash, they will probably have to resort to court action and risk bankrupting the companies and losing their cash anyway.Legally, if you want a refund you are entitled to it, what they want to give you has no legal standing. According to you people wont want to be in large crowds, so why would you accept a discount for an event you have no intention of attending. Clubs normally have around 5 or 6 midweek games scheduled a season, how many less season tickets will be sold when people can't make at least 15 midweek games through work or family commitments?

So do we play a 20% of a season when we are allowed to play and then write next year off? How will that generate income?

We don't know when crowds will be allowed back yet and September is only a guesstimate. I think Autumn which is later.

Why should clubs distribute the money from TV games? If Sky\BT or A.N. OTHER is showing the game, there will be no ifollow for that game.

Yes you are legally entitled to a cash refund but that only works if the other party plays the game (no pun intended). You can't get cash if they won't give it without resorting to the courts. Even with a judgement in your favour, you are not guaranteed your cash unless you pay again to enforce the judgement. You mentioned earlier about clubs paying back advertising revenue, why should they? The advertising boards are still there and will have been displayed for the agreed length of time. The fact that there are no crowds to see them is totally irrelevant and the contract will have been fulfilled.

Nothing is black and white and the world as we know it has changed. My view, and you won't change it, is that the season should be written off as it's the easiest and least costly way forward. It is also the fairest solution in my view.

I know you won't agree, which is fine, but we can argue until Autumn but that won't change the fact that the 2019/20 season has been cruelly interrupted by something that is no-ones fault. The only question is how do the authorities rectify the situation, do they drag it out or cut their losses?